![]() Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source" and its sister section MOS:LEAD. Please actually refer to WP:LEADCITE ".balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. They tend to have clean leads which merely summarize the following article, without too much detail, leaving the citations for later. As for comparisons with other articles, a better example for comparison would be a WP:Good Article or Featured article. So, per WP:BRD, I reverted, so now we discuss. Recently, the cites were boldly added to the lead, against the status quo, tact consensus, and the WP:HIDDEN#Appropriate_uses_for_hidden_text hidden comment to editors. ![]() The article was improved by the addition of lots of citations in the body, and editing of the lead to merely summarize, sans cites. So, though it was not active, discussion-based consensus, it was tacit consensus. ![]() And keeping the lead clean has only been disputed by you. But moving the cites down from the lead was not disputed by the other interested editors. If you look, you'll see that there was quite a little battle trying to save the article from a deletionist who was not interested in finding sources himself. ![]() Consensus: the lead cleanup occurred in March 2010, and was not disputed by several highly interested editors. I didn't find any discussions by most other editors on lead citing? I will be restoring those cites soon, unless there is consensus with your argument with other editors and they disagree with my understanding.- Incident Flux 11:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Reply Controversy per se is only one trigger for discussion. As a test I'd suggest you remove cites from lead sections from the Wikipedia or iTunes articles and see how that goes. I'd say we can have additional cites in the history section, to keep the lead tidy. But if dates and names are mentioned there should be cites with them, specially if its the start of the article. There are many many good articles that have references in lead, I somewhat agree to adding too many redundant cites, however adding three distinct reliable sources adds value to any article. Lexein ( talk) 00:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Reply Firstly this is a non-controversial issue, and doesn't require discussion. Although it's true that in the extreme, there are no rules, I and apparently most other editors of this article agreed that this lead section looks better "clean." If an editor thinks the sources they found are better than those in the article, feel free to add them in the article, not the lead, and/or discuss them here. Per WP:LEADCITE, a long time ago, I moved citations (and their associated full text) out of the lead and down the article, and used the lead to merely summarize the article per MOS:LEAD. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Low-importance). This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Software Wikipedia:WikiProject Software Template:WikiProject Software software articles If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. Software : Computing B‑class Mid‑importance This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: For older candidates, please check the archive.Ĭurrent status: Former featured article candidate Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Winamp is a former featured article candidate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |